If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It is really for the player, more than for the linesperson/umpire/spectators

Originally Posted by jamesd20

In Tennis as people have said hawk eye & challenges are only generally available on two courts at the GS events. I don't see this as an issue.

In Cricket the referral system has been in use since mid 2009 & is not at every event & it is at the discretion of the ruling bodies (eg. if ENG play AUS and one of those don't want to use it, it won't be used)

I think there is a clear distinction between these systems (Hotspot, snickometer & hawkeye) and a plain camera. The former gives a definitive answer (at least to the capabilities of the camera). The latter, proposed to be used in badminton, perhaps, doesn't. There will still be ambiguity over calls as we would be simply reviewing a video and making a personal decision from there. MOST decisions will be simple, but close ones will be impossible to tell due to the shape of the Shuttle & the angle of the cameras etc..

I personally don't think there is much of an issue in the game. Sure there are some bad line calls, but the % is pretty low.

.
What is best about the video replay system is that it allows a player to clear his/her mind from what he/she thought the previous call was made wrong. It is really for the player, more than for the linesperson/umpire/spectators.

With the video replay system shown to the player, there will be no more nagging of doubt in the player's mind; and therefore the player will move on, to continue to play with a 'clearer' mind.
.

Yes and with video replays unless there is clear evidence the ruling was incorrect the call will stand. I wouldn't be opposed, let's call it a perk of the tv court which in reality is what we will be seeing mostly anyway. I'm sure in lower level rugby there is no such thing either or even in the premiership ...

In the RU premiership & Superleague they have video decisions for try decisions only. Union is quite good & fast, they only use if there is doubt. In league I find it annoying, they seem to check everyone even obvious ones & it slows the game a bit.

Originally Posted by chris-ccc

.
What is best about the video replay system is that it allows a player to clear his/her mind from what he/she thought the previous call was made wrong. It is really for the player, more than for the linesperson/umpire/spectators.

With the video replay system shown to the player, there will be no more nagging of doubt in the player's mind; and therefore the player will move on, to continue to play with a 'clearer' mind.
.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a luddite, I don't mind technology coming in but surely the last bit is part of the mental side of the game? In a marginal case surely a player would be more upset if he saw the video, still thought it was in his favour, but the umpire ruled otherwise. My point over Hawkey etc.. is the computer system says Yes or No. a plain video still offers ambiguity & the opinion of the umpire/referee. I can imagine Crowds becoming agitated, Coaches getting involved etc..etc..

Some old folks are just afraid to technology. There are lots of smart people who can contribute to take advantage of technology. It is matured now days. It is a case of how you apply it. Experience matters.

.
Yes, it's about time for BWF to implement this replay system (to check disputes over line calls).

It's such a simple system that many of us think that it should have been implemented years ago.
.

You mean so simple that a money loaded organisation like FIFA won't do it for goal line controversies. hehe. But yes, right step in the right direction.

Looking at replays on TV, it looks like the frame rate would have to be much faster to improve the positive predictive value.

I agree that 2 challenges seems too few, unless you mean 2 challenges per game. If you had more than 4 challenges (>2x2) over the whole match, would that be too disruptive? Personally, I think it would be good for the game. Commentators have a bit more time to do analysis and commentate.

Hot-Spot is better technology for badminton then Hawk-Eye

Hawk-Eye is probability based technology, and uses multi-variate input and deductions to predict the path of the ball. It may make tennis more enjoyable for telly, but in cricket, the adoption has not been universal.

Hot-Spot, which uses infra-red technology for cent-percent determination of the exact contact of the cricket ball, has better advantage. Badminton may be better suited to test the feasibility by having a single overhead hot-spot camera that scans all court lines.

Look out for an extra ear-piece on the umpire. Any time an umpire has more information at hand to take the correct decision, that can only be good. The discussions on this forum may read slightly different from then on.

Even for the replay and challenges, how they work in match conditions may need a lot of fine tuning before the final directive comes from KL. Expect a lot of experimentation at GP and GPG events.

Technology may help in playing a role in increasing the already-high percentage of correct line calls in badminton. If use of replay/video reviews, or high tech cameras remove the rare instance of incorrect line call, then so much the better.

All bwf need to do is to do an experiment and give small funds to a few selected vendors to display their expertise and feasibility.

This is what governments do to get project started. I don't think BWF is that poor with massage chairs giving aways.... lol

Eg. you can even put a camera in front of the linesmen and if there are disputes, press a button to playback and see it together with umpire or referee. Why the red tape or bureaucracy? Think out of the box.

DRS: the focal point of the ICC annual conference

Thought you might be interested in knowing......

ESPNcricinfo staff
June 24, 2011

The Decision Review System (DRS) is likely to be the focal point at the ICC's five-day annual conference that begins on Sunday in Hong Kong. The ICC's cricket committee had unanimously recommended the use of the DRS in all Tests, but the system has been a source of disagreement among the boards, with the BCCI opposing its implementation.

"The ICC cricket committee is in favour of employing DRS in all formats of the game," ICC chief Haroon Lorgat said ahead of the conference. "They were quite impressed with the success in terms of all the research and feedback they received. It was very strongly evaluated during the cricket committee meeting in May, and after long deliberation they were unanimous in supporting the application of DRS across all forms of the game."

Good question but comparing to the obvious, tennis, hawk-eye is not available on most courts either. Serena was moaning again yesterday that she had to play on Court 2 for among other reasons no challenge opportunity, oh wait that was for the "old court 2". But still, plenty of courts without camera's, let alone hawk-eye ...

..that's fine. Personally, i could care less if they want to mimic tennis or table tennis or cricket or other sports in only using the replay system in selected courts or matches; or from which round they'll start using it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see..

Originally Posted by 2wheels04

...Even for the replay and challenges, how they work in match conditions may need a lot of fine tuning before the final directive comes from KL. Expect a lot of experimentation at GP and GPG events...

..i like the idea of having this replay system start at GP and/or GPG events, as guinea pig events for the proposed replay system, just to see how it goes.
Overall, i just feel the video replay system is sufficient and probably the most cost effective. If the call is too tough to make either way, then the players just have to accept whatever umpire's decision it is and move on..

Overall, i just feel the video replay system is sufficient and probably the most cost effective. If the call is too tough to make either way, then the players just have to accept whatever umpire's decision it is and move on..

You're quite correct about the DRS being sufficient. Badminton is played under controlled and controllable conditions. The only real issue is the speed and size of the shuttlecock, and the fact that it bends out of shape under pressure. This is the reason why you need a (preferably static) 6-camera setup (7 if you include the overhead cam) with high-speed recording that allows you to playback in slow-mo for accurate analysis. Again, it is the cost of this setup that may baulk the organisers from installing it at every court, and every event.

The DRS typically comes in useful under 2 situations:

Where there is a really bad (or suspected "favoured") line call, and the player is confident that his challenge will be successful. In that case he will not have used up the challenge.

Where for any reason the bird has been obscured or the linesman has been unsighted at the critical moment.

Personally I feel that 2 challenges per side per game is more than sufficient. It maintains a decent balance between the use of technology and the human side. It has also been proven to keep the linesmen and umpires more active (honest? on their toes? ) without being a threat to their presence: the DRS is after all, there to help them do their job better, not to supplant them.

Overall, i just feel the video replay system is sufficient and probably the most cost effective. If the call is too tough to make either way, then the players just have to accept whatever umpire's decision it is and move on..

Disagree on the ordinary video being sufficient. I believe the frame rate is not fast enough, nor high enough resolution to capture that crucial point of impact of the floor.

If you are going to use it, I feel it must provide a much clearer view, otherwise the umpires are going to be in a very difficult position.